IT'S A SCANDAL, SAYS JUDGE AS HE SCRAPS POUNDS 50M DRUG TRIAL

Investigators failed to follow right procedures, write Simon de Bruxelles
and Richard Ford

CUSTOMS officers have been criticised by a senior judge after the collapse
of a series of drugs trials amid allegations that investigators lied to the
court and manipulated evidence.

Five alleged drug smugglers had charges against them thrown out at a second
retrial because investigators failed to follow proper procedures and then
lied about it under oath.

The collapse of the series of trials is estimated to have cost the taxpayer
at least pounds 50 million and customs officers may now face disciplinary
action.

Among the men cleared of importing cocaine are Brian Doran and Kenneth
Togher, described at their original trial, when they were each sentenced to
25 years in prison, as "two of Britain's biggest gangsters", and George
Caccavale.

Doran and Togher are expecting to be freed on bail pending the outcome of an
appeal against other drugs charges and could be entitled to compensation for
nearly five years in prison.

Chris Sallon, QC, defending Mr Caccavale, said last night that the judgment
illustrated how important proper disclosure of evidence was in criminal
cases.

The case against them collapsed because customs officers failed to get
proper authorisation to bug rooms in three hotels where the plot to import
cocaine worth pounds 34 million was being hatched.

Throwing out the case, Mr Justice Turner, who was to have heard the retrial
at Bristol Crown Court, said: "It would not be right to leave this case
without expressing a deep sense of judicial concern over what may be
considered to be a scandalous result.

"This arises out of the undoubted commission of a crime which is as socially
corrosive and destructive as the importation of a massive quantity of high
purity cocaine, which will, in effect, now go unpunished."

In February, ten men accused of importing pounds 14.5 million worth of
cannabis walked free from court after a judge said the customs investigation
had been riddled with "illegality and incompetence".

Mr Justice Turner described the collapse of the latest case as a "debacle"
and referred his judgment to the Attorney-General. He made his ruling at
Bristol Crown Court after hearing that undercover officers had bugged rooms
at the hotels but had failed to seek authorisation from superiors or the
management. Although officers insisted that they had sought permission from
the hotels there was no evidence.

Mr Justice Turner said: "Here there was abundant evidence to justify
prosecution and, on one view, conviction.

"It is because, and only because, of the failures of the prosecution, when
presented with such evidence, to have followed necessary legal requirements
in connection with their evidence-gathering techniques, and the obligations
to make full and proper disclosure to the court, that has led to this
debacle. These failures strike at the rule of law. It is the consequence of
these failures that has led to the public being deprived of the protection
which a successful trial would have provided."

Brian "El Jock" Doran, 54, was the "principal organiser" and Kenneth Togher,
35, his right-hand man, in a pounds 65 million drugs cartel which led to
four trials. The pair allegedly ran their drug-smuggling operations from
London hotels and held secret meetings at places such as the Tate Gallery.

For a year and a half customs officers shadowed the two and their gang on
trips around the world, breaking into hotel rooms to photocopy diaries and
tracing complex money-laundering operations.

After the ruling, Togher's solicitor, John Bentham, said: "Mr Togher cannot
believe it. He keeps having nightmares that the judge has changed his mind..
. . We will be pursuing the issue of compensation with vigour."

Doran's solicitor, Wayne Horner, said: "Brian is overwhelmed and ecstatic.
Eighteen months ago he was looking at spending the next 25 years in jail and
now he could be out on bail within a week."

A spokesman for Customs and Excise said that officers involved in the case
could face disciplinary action.

"This case took place over five years ago, prior to legislation specifically
dealing with authorisations for intrusive surveillance, the issue at the
centre of the judge's ruling.

"Since that time, we have fully revised our procedures in line with current
legislation and they are overseen by the independent commissioner for
intrusive surveillance."